"Defending the Indefensible"

[NightHawkeye]

On or about May 10, 2016, at London's Kensington Wine Rooms, Papadopoulos allegedly told the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Russia was in possession of emails relating to Hillary Clinton. In July, after the DNC hacking had become known, the Australians told U.S. authorities about Papadopoulos's comment, leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Donald Trump presidential campaign on July 31, 2016

Yes, that sounds like the official version at one point in time.

Did you by any chance learn from whom Papadopoulos acquired his information?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Russian interference in the 2016 election was real. It really happened and was not a hoax.

And also in volume 1 the President was innocent of the charges of collusion - in fact no American was.

 

[Speedwell]

And also in volume 1 the President was innocent of the charges of collusion - in fact no American was.

So we can discount the Russian interference and don't have to do anything about it. QED

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did you by any chance learn from whom Papadopoulos acquired his information?

I believe it was Professor Misfud and/or Putin's fake niece.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I believe it was Professor Misfud and/or Putin's fake niece.

... and what do we know about Mifsud?

Start here:
‘The enigma of the entire Mueller probe’: Focus on origins of Russian investigation puts spotlight on Maltese professor | Washington Post

“I never got any money from the Russians: my conscience is clear,” Mifsud told La Repubblica. “I am not a secret agent.”

Then Mifsud disappeared.

The Maltese-born academic has not surfaced publicly since that October 2017 interview, days after Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about details of their interactions. Among them, Papadopoulos told investigators, was an April 2016 meeting in which Mifsud alerted him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

The conversation between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, eventually relayed by an Australian diplomat to U.S. government officials, was cited by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as the event that set in motion the FBI probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
...
“When you look into Mifsud closer, you realize he’s connected with all kinds of intelligence agencies, including our own FBI,” Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox in May.​

 

[essentialsaltes]

... and what do we know about Mifsud?

Your ellipsis is showing.

a number of President Trump’s allies and advisers have been floating a provocative theory: that the Maltese professor was a Western intelligence plant.

Seizing on the vacuum of information about him, they have promoted the idea that he was working for the FBI, CIA or possibly British or Italian intelligence, citing exaggerated and at times distorted details about his life.

Officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports told The Post that Mifsud had been identified by intelligence agencies as a potential Russian agent before he met Papadopoulos, an assessment drawn from reporting collected over several years.

Once a fringe idea, the theory that Mifsud was a Western operative has now been adopted and amplified by mainstream voices in Trump’s world and received significant airtime on Fox News’s prime-time shows.

----

He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a "wheeler-dealer" by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud's former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17] Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying "I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian."[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud "maintained various Russian contacts while living in London", including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Your ellipsis is showing.

a number of President Trump’s allies and advisers have been floating a provocative theory: that the Maltese professor was a Western intelligence plant.

Seizing on the vacuum of information about him, they have promoted the idea that he was working for the FBI, CIA or possibly British or Italian intelligence, citing exaggerated and at times distorted details about his life.

Officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reports told The Post that Mifsud had been identified by intelligence agencies as a potential Russian agent before he met Papadopoulos, an assessment drawn from reporting collected over several years.

Once a fringe idea, the theory that Mifsud was a Western operative has now been adopted and amplified by mainstream voices in Trump’s world and received significant airtime on Fox News’s prime-time shows.

----

He regularly attended meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Russia, backed by the Kremlin and attended by Vladimir Putin.[14] According to a BBC report, Mifsud was in Moscow in April 2016 to speak on a panel run by the Valdai Club alongside Dr. Stephan Roh, a German multimillionaire lawyer and investor described as a "wheeler-dealer" by the BBC Newsnight program.[15] Roh, Mifsud's former employer,[16] could not be reached for comment by the BBC and has since attempted to erase links between the two men on his company website. Another speaker at the Valdai Club was Ivan Timofeev, who works for a think tank close to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whom Mifsud subsequently introduced to Papadopoulos via email.[15] Mifsud reportedly claimed to his former girlfriend that he was friends with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.[17] Mifsud himself denied having any contact with the Russian government, saying "I am an academic, I do not even speak Russian."[8] The Mueller Report, released in 2019, said that Mifsud "maintained various Russian contacts while living in London", including an unnamed person (name redacted), who was a former staff member of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll farm based in Saint Petersburg.

In other words, Mifsud was a sought after intelligence operative with a long resume' of contacts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In other words, a sought after intelligence operative with a long resume of contacts.

A Russian operative, yes. More seeking than sought after, I think. Looking for useful idiots.

 

[NightHawkeye]

A Russian operative, yes. More seeking than sought after, I think. Looking for useful idiots.

There's a virtually limitless supply of useful idiots.

Those with useful contacts though are always in short supply. The fact that Mifsud has managed to effectively drop out of sight just proves the point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are apparently a lot of people who don't understand the origins of the investigation

I'm glad we've been able to help those people out. A skilled Russian operative courted a Trump campaign advisor, telling him that the Russians had information on Trump's opponent. The staffer talked about it to a diplomat who later tipped off the FBI, who subsequently initiated a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm glad we've been able to help those people out. A skilled Russian operative courted a Trump campaign advisor, telling him that the Russians had information on Trump's opponent. The staffer talked about it to a diplomat who later tipped off the FBI, who subsequently initiated a counterintelligence investigation in July 2016.

Yes, that's the James Comey FBI version of the story.

We'll see what version the U. S. attorney's office comes up with. Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

 

[childeye 2]

According to Jay Sekulow, "defending the indefensible" was the problem the Honorable Robert Mueller had yesterday. It wasn't so much that Mueller had lost his mental faculties, the problem was that Mueller couldn't defend the indefensible.

As a Christian, that makes sense to me. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I have studied semantics most all of my life. I can assure you that any reasoning based on falsehood, ends in a contradiction. This is utter nonsense and I hope you're honest enough and smart enough to not be fooled by Jay Sekulow. When a prosecutor is appointed to find out if a crime was committed, but is not allowed to determine whether a crime was committed by those who appointed him, that is a contradiction of reasoning.

Respectfully, any statement made by anyone implying that the other side of an issue is trying to defend the indefensible, is only an assertion until sufficient evidence is presented to prove why it's indefensible.

Jay Sekulow made the argument that Mueller could not claim that his report did not exonerate the President because it's not a prosecutor's job to exonerate. Sekulow is essentially saying that Mueller, by default, could never exonerate the President without the President first being indicted for doing something wrong. Meanwhile because of the same ridiculous circumstance of the DOJ guidelines, Mueller is stating that since he is not allowed to indict even if he has the evidence of a crime being committed, he therefore cannot exonerate the President. They both therefore agree through semantics that Mueller cannot exonerate the President, but one implies innocence and one implies guilt...

Ever notice that the tares want to obfuscate because they don't want to be found, while the wheat want clarity because they want to be found?

John 3:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We'll see what version the U. S. attorney's office comes up with. Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

Don't forget the DOJ Inspector General investigation into the Carter Page FISA stuff. Barr promised us that in May or June, but here it is July. I wonder what the delay was?

"One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear."

Uh-oh.

Or John Huber. He's been on the case for more than a year and a half.

How hard can it be for Justice to check its own files on how all this happened?

 

[DaisyDay]

My goodness! What emotional language you - how is this not an ad hom?

...Democrats panting desire ...
...shrill Democrats
...fear mongering and cowardice
...the gang that couldn't shoot straight
...whining and complaining
...afraid
...charade
...petulant children...

I wonder if you could fit some more insults into this screed?

 

[childeye 2]

The congressional Democrats panting desire to draw "collusion" between President Trump and the Russian state in the 2016 election.

Obstructing a non crime.

There was a crime as we have already seen. The Russians interference with the election was a crime. Obstruction of any investigation to determine whether a crime was committed is a crime. There is no such thing as obstructing a non crime. It's simply sophistry.

I study semantics and I can assure you that any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction as I have shown above.

Liars talk out of both ends of their mouth contradicting their selves. When Trump said that it's a good thing to find out if anyone in his campaign colluded with Russia, he contradicts his statement that this is a witch hunt which is a bad thing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

According to Jay Sekulow, "defending the indefensible" was the problem the Honorable Robert Mueller had yesterday. It wasn't so much that Mueller had lost his mental faculties, the problem was that Mueller couldn't defend the indefensible.

As a Christian, that makes sense to me. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

OR, that the system is so fouled up, Mueller shouldn't even have been called to testify, so he did his best (what he could, or what he thought best, or what he was told to do)
in a broken system.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Perhaps that is because you don't regard the Mueller investigation as a key component to Hillary's Secret Plan to Get Trump

?

Who is bigger , a person trying to "get" someone,

or a Creator who orchestrates everyone/all things/ according to His Own Plan ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There was a crime as we have already seen. The Russians interference with the election was a crime. Obstruction of any investigation to determine whether a crime was committed is a crime.

I study semantics and I can assure you that any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction as I have shown above.
....

Are you presuming that there is someone, somewhere , in politics who is right ? Or recognizing that they are all actors , pretending, jockeying for position, power and advantage ?

 

[childeye 2]

Are you presuming that there is someone, somewhere , in politics who is right ? Or recognizing that they are all actors , pretending, jockeying for position, power and advantage ?

I believe all things are built on faith, wherefore I scrutinize people's words to determine whether they believe the greatest is the one who serves the rest, or whether they believe the greatest is the one who is getting served by the rest. I therefore assume there are both. Please read post #34.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I believe all things are built on faith, wherefore I scrutinize people's words to determine whether they believe the greatest is the one who serves the rest, or whether they believe the greatest is the one who is getting served by the rest. I therefore assume there are both.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.